Erik Moeller wrote:
Caveat lector: The system which I think should be used
by the Wikimedia
Foundation is different. With GNOME's bounty system, you have potentially
the situation where two developers hack away on the same stuff, but only
one of them (who submits the code earlier) gets paid.
I already addressed this problem by saying that we should simply
introduce a policy that whoever wants to work on a bug should set
themselves as the assignee of the relevant bug entry in BugZilla.
I think there should be an open call for tenders
process, where a
technical-minded steering committee appointed or elected by the foundation
outlines certain key tasks, and the developers can name the conditions
under which they are willing to complete them
This is quite an involved process; all this evaluation and negotiation
takes time and energy, and may not be worth it for small and simple
bugs/features. Personally, I think the system would be most pleasant if
people could just assign a bug to them and start working on it straight
away.
As far as I'm aware, you've never replied to my suggested system -- do
you have any opinion on it? If you think it is unsuitable, could you
deliver some constructive criticism?
Because "bounty" carries strong connotations
of competition rather than
cooperation, I would like us to stop using that word, at least when
referring to the proposal described above. Instead, it should be described
as a tender process.
I never liked the term "bounty" either because it reminds me of a
chocolate bar. ;-)
The system I described would probably most sensibly be called a
"Bazaar", since it is modelled after the LiveJournal Bazaar.
Timwi